No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[TalkingCheese]

Great analogy SC

There's also the complaint that HMRC sat on their hands for 7 years knowing full well what we were doing.

Here's an analogy...

HMRC knew you drove at 60 mph in 2001 and every successive year until 2008. There was nothing illegal about it at the time, but it was in a built-up area and they just didn't like the fact that you were driving too fast.

They pondered over it until 2008, realising nothing wrong had been done, until some bright spark, let's call him Mr BranMcFawlty decided it would be a good idea to retrospectively change the law and pretend to Parliament that they were in actual fact "clarifying" an existing 30mph law that applied to horse-drawn stage coaches.

So there you have it, the speed limit was 30mph all along, since 1989. But it obviously wasn't clear to you that a Ford Focus is in fact a type of stagecoach. and now if you don't mind, we'd like you to pay 7 years of speeding tickets with interest.

... and now they are counting on the short term £2-300m they are hoping to get from this change (brought in by the previous government so they can swerve some of the blame for it's retrospectiveness and the bankruptcies to ensue) to help with the budget deficit, so would like to ignore the issue and reap the benefits...

[BrilloPad]

... and now they are counting on the short term £2-300m they are hoping to get from this change (brought in by the previous government so they can swerve some of the blame for it's retrospectiveness and the bankruptcies to ensue) to help with the budget deficit, so would like to ignore the issue and reap the benefits...

they are going to get closer to £2 than £300m. but i don't think this is to do with money. its brannigan taking it personally.

[TalkingCheese]

they are going to get closer to £2 than £300m. but i don't think this is to do with money. its brannigan taking it personally.

Agreed, but they can't justify to the upper echelons (Cameron/Osborne/Gauke) on a personal level so use the money as one of their We can't amend this clause because... reasons.

[moira under the stairs]

Agreed, but they can't justify to the upper echelons (Cameron/Osborne/Gauke) on a personal level so use the money as one of their We can't amend this clause because... reasons.

Didn't someone on this forum have Cameron as their local MP surely he can be presented with the fact's and not the HMRC wooly version.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1546541

[reckless]

HMRC Response to MP

I today received via my MP a response from HMRC to my original letter back in March. It was from Judith Knott, CBE, Director of Anti-tax-avoidance. It is more or less the same as the standard Gauke letter (the courts have decided, we always said it would not work......). The penultinate paragraph responds to my citing the Tax Avoidance Protocol. She refers to the section 'where the change takes effect earlier than the date of announcement, it will be wholly exceptional.' She then goes on to say this is a Ministerial Protocol, because the decision to introduce retrospective legislation is a decision for ministers, not HMRC.

So in summary, what we have here is;

1) Years of HMRC inactivity and failure to act honestly and properly.
2) A sudden panic when it is realised they have messed up.
3) The cunning plan to lie to Parliament about the validity of the DTA scheme.
4) Hoodwink Governement minsiters into introducing the necessary legislation retrospectively.
5) Blame the Government ministers (past and present) for our plight.
6) HMRC remain in the clear.

I wonder what the same ministers are now thinking, having been made the fall guys, and now having to deal with the flak?

Can CBEs be taken away for misleading Parliament? Maybe not if it stands for Career Before Ethics.

[moira under the stairs]

I today received via my MP a response from HMRC to my original letter back in March. It was from Judith Knott, CBE, Director of Anti-tax-avoidance. It is more or less the same as the standard Gauke letter (the courts have decided, we always said it would not work......). The penultinate paragraph responds to my citing the Tax Avoidance Protocol. She refers to the section 'where the change takes effect earlier than the date of announcement, it will be wholly exceptional.' She then goes on to say this is a Ministerial Protocol, because the decision to introduce retrospective legislation is a decision for ministers, not HMRC.

So in summary, what we have here is;

1) Years of HMRC inactivity and failure to act honestly and properly.
2) A sudden panic when it is realised they have messed up.
3) The cunning plan to lie to Parliament about the validity of the DTA scheme.
4) Hoodwink Governement minsiters into introducing the necessary legislation retrospectively.
5) Blame the Government ministers (past and present) for our plight.
6) HMRC remain in the clear.

I wonder what the same ministers are now thinking, having been made the fall guys, and now having to deal with the flak?

Can CBEs be taken away for misleading Parliament? Maybe not if it stands for Career Before Ethics.

Is this another pompous looking waster ?

Judith Knott | Tax Journal

[Corrian]

I today received via my MP a response from HMRC to my original letter back in March. It was from Judith Knott, CBE, Director of Anti-tax-avoidance. It is more or less the same as the standard Gauke letter (the courts have decided, we always said it would not work......). The penultinate paragraph responds to my citing the Tax Avoidance Protocol. She refers to the section 'where the change takes effect earlier than the date of announcement, it will be wholly exceptional.' She then goes on to say this is a Ministerial Protocol, because the decision to introduce retrospective legislation is a decision for ministers, not HMRC.

So in summary, what we have here is;

1) Years of HMRC inactivity and failure to act honestly and properly.
2) A sudden panic when it is realised they have messed up.
3) The cunning plan to lie to Parliament about the validity of the DTA scheme.
4) Hoodwink Governement minsiters into introducing the necessary legislation retrospectively.
5) Blame the Government ministers (past and present) for our plight.
6) HMRC remain in the clear.

I wonder what the same ministers are now thinking, having been made the fall guys, and now having to deal with the flak?

Can CBEs be taken away for misleading Parliament? Maybe not if it stands for Career Before Ethics.

I've just received the same letter. I'm now going to scan it and send it to the NTRT team to advise on our next move.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

.

HMRC - I know you're out there

.

[Toocan]

.

HMRC - I know you're out there

.

Given the evidence that I've seen over the past three weeks, they'd be fools if they don't take that seriously.

[normalbloke]

I am the PM's constituent..

Didn't someone on this forum have Cameron as their local MP surely he can be presented with the fact's and not the HMRC wooly version.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1546541

Yep, that's me. The wheels are turning. I have been (and still am) in constant contact with Whitehouse and have sent off bespoke letters with all the salient facts to him and his office. Still waiting for replies. But it's in hand....